Official Government Shutdown 2023 Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol at some folks thinking McCarthy was underestimated. McCarthy could have done this weeks or months ago. He could have reached across the aisle and got a bi-partisian deal done, but he didn't. he waited until he was backed in a corner. I get that he has to grandstand some. that's politics. but you know what would have made him look really strong--keeping the deal he agreed to under the debt ceiling agreement. this 45 day CR is pretty close to that deal anyway--meaning all the drastic cuts proposed by the HFC didn't happen.

well, now he gets to make Gaetz et al look like fools. I feel like the consistent critique of McCarthy is that he “caves” and gets “humiliated” by a drawn-out process, yet here he is still standing & government running.

sure. he did stick it to Matt Gaetz, for now. But he could have done that without putting the country through this drama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don’t understand why we are finding Ukraine. This is akin to China funding Mexico if the US invaded Mexico after China created an entire defense pact in South America and was hinting for years that Mexico would join.

We are in a proxy war with Russia. We don’t want them to re-establish power in the former Soviet territories. So we send money (though much of the funding stays internal to the US in terms of defense supplies), and Ukrainians supply the manpower. Pretty good arrangement, really.

NP. I don’t disagree with you but the Admin and Pentagon and State need to make this case publicly on record and Congress needs to publicly debate the pros and cons of this. If that happens I think most would back it.
Heck, Bush and his henchmen at State and in the military at least did this in justifying a war with Iraq based entirely on lies.

This isn't a state secret but it's not something that you advertise publicly. Our current official support for Ukraine is sufficient. The House already voted for the Ukraine aid. They just needed something to complain about during these past couple days.

Your response is why so many in this country distrust the federal government and just gives populists rhetorical ammo.

Wow- someone who gets it. Many working class Republicans sent their sons to war for Bush and got burned and betrayed with the lies. And in the end, it was all for nothing. Even though the Ukraine war is using Ukrainian men instead of American men this time, there's just no appetite to continue funding more forever wars after funding Iraq/Afghanistan for 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol at some folks thinking McCarthy was underestimated. McCarthy could have done this weeks or months ago. He could have reached across the aisle and got a bi-partisian deal done, but he didn't. he waited until he was backed in a corner. I get that he has to grandstand some. that's politics. but you know what would have made him look really strong--keeping the deal he agreed to under the debt ceiling agreement. this 45 day CR is pretty close to that deal anyway--meaning all the drastic cuts proposed by the HFC didn't happen.

well, now he gets to make Gaetz et al look like fools. I feel like the consistent critique of McCarthy is that he “caves” and gets “humiliated” by a drawn-out process, yet here he is still standing & government running.

sure. he did stick it to Matt Gaetz, for now. But he could have done that without putting the country through this drama.

+1. and McCarthy is the one that invited this mess by entertaining the freedom caucus. He's out here saying "I am the adult in the room." sure, but you let the knucklehead kids in to burn it down. dude, we are here BECAUSE of McCarthy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don’t understand why we are finding Ukraine. This is akin to China funding Mexico if the US invaded Mexico after China created an entire defense pact in South America and was hinting for years that Mexico would join.

We are in a proxy war with Russia. We don’t want them to re-establish power in the former Soviet territories. So we send money (though much of the funding stays internal to the US in terms of defense supplies), and Ukrainians supply the manpower. Pretty good arrangement, really.

NP. I don’t disagree with you but the Admin and Pentagon and State need to make this case publicly on record and Congress needs to publicly debate the pros and cons of this. If that happens I think most would back it.
Heck, Bush and his henchmen at State and in the military at least did this in justifying a war with Iraq based entirely on lies.

This isn't a state secret but it's not something that you advertise publicly. Our current official support for Ukraine is sufficient. The House already voted for the Ukraine aid. They just needed something to complain about during these past couple days.

Your response is why so many in this country distrust the federal government and just gives populists rhetorical ammo.

Wow- someone who gets it. Many working class Republicans sent their sons to war for Bush and got burned and betrayed with the lies. And in the end, it was all for nothing. Even though the Ukraine war is using Ukrainian men instead of American men this time, there's just no appetite to continue funding more forever wars after funding Iraq/Afghanistan for 20 years.

Brilliant analysis, Prime Minister Chamberlain. We'll have this Hitler chap off our backs in no time once he moves in Poland and his appetite is satiated.


Funny that the Ukrainian men would rather fight back against Putin than let him kill them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol at some folks thinking McCarthy was underestimated. McCarthy could have done this weeks or months ago. He could have reached across the aisle and got a bi-partisian deal done, but he didn't. he waited until he was backed in a corner. I get that he has to grandstand some. that's politics. but you know what would have made him look really strong--keeping the deal he agreed to under the debt ceiling agreement. this 45 day CR is pretty close to that deal anyway--meaning all the drastic cuts proposed by the HFC didn't happen.

well, now he gets to make Gaetz et al look like fools. I feel like the consistent critique of McCarthy is that he “caves” and gets “humiliated” by a drawn-out process, yet here he is still standing & government running.

sure. he did stick it to Matt Gaetz, for now. But he could have done that without putting the country through this drama.

+1. and McCarthy is the one that invited this mess by entertaining the freedom caucus. He's out here saying "I am the adult in the room." sure, but you let the knucklehead kids in to burn it down. dude, we are here BECAUSE of McCarthy!

He didn't "entertain" them; they got elected by the Republican political-criminal-machine and formed their anti-government caucus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CRs should be illegal. It makes it hard to get things done at work. Not everything can be perfectly funded 1/12. A lot of things require up front funding

You think 1/12 is better than 1/12?

CR means everything already in progress keeps going, and new things don't start yet. If you are trying to subvert Congress by launching a new project using funds allocated for other purposes, you don't deserve an easy path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don’t understand why we are finding Ukraine. This is akin to China funding Mexico if the US invaded Mexico after China created an entire defense pact in South America and was hinting for years that Mexico would join.

We are in a proxy war with Russia. We don’t want them to re-establish power in the former Soviet territories. So we send money (though much of the funding stays internal to the US in terms of defense supplies), and Ukrainians supply the manpower. Pretty good arrangement, really.

Except that we shouldn’t be in a proxy war with a nuclear power. Remember how dangerous the Cold War era was? And second, the Ukrainians will never win this war. Instead the US’s goal is to exhaust the Russians till the last Ukrainian. It is fighting its proxy war till the last Ukrainian. This is what the US did when it funded Afghan fighters (including Osama Bin Laden) against the Russians.

Umm, the Ukrainians are successfully pushing Russia out of the Crimea. Not fast, but it's happening.

It’s not happening. Just like Assad being toppled didn’t happen and the Taliban losing didn’t happen. It didn’t happen just like in Vietnam.

Someone isn't paying attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don’t understand why we are finding Ukraine. This is akin to China funding Mexico if the US invaded Mexico after China created an entire defense pact in South America and was hinting for years that Mexico would join.

We are in a proxy war with Russia. We don’t want them to re-establish power in the former Soviet territories. So we send money (though much of the funding stays internal to the US in terms of defense supplies), and Ukrainians supply the manpower. Pretty good arrangement, really.

great arrangement except for all the Ukrainian lines being sacrificed.

Someone should tell Putin to stop, instead of going on junkets with him in Moscow on USA Independence Day

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol at some folks thinking McCarthy was underestimated. McCarthy could have done this weeks or months ago. He could have reached across the aisle and got a bi-partisian deal done, but he didn't. he waited until he was backed in a corner. I get that he has to grandstand some. that's politics. but you know what would have made him look really strong--keeping the deal he agreed to under the debt ceiling agreement. this 45 day CR is pretty close to that deal anyway--meaning all the drastic cuts proposed by the HFC didn't happen.

well, now he gets to make Gaetz et al look like fools. I feel like the consistent critique of McCarthy is that he “caves” and gets “humiliated” by a drawn-out process, yet here he is still standing & government running.

sure. he did stick it to Matt Gaetz, for now. But he could have done that without putting the country through this drama.

+1. and McCarthy is the one that invited this mess by entertaining the freedom caucus. He's out here saying "I am the adult in the room." sure, but you let the knucklehead kids in to burn it down. dude, we are here BECAUSE of McCarthy!

He didn't "entertain" them; they got elected by the Republican political-criminal-machine and formed their anti-government caucus.

PLEASE! The moment the bi-partisian debt deal was made and voted on, the freedom caucus started this BS. instead of moving forward on the deal made, McCarthy let these knuckleheads get louder and louder. leadership is not taking people to the brink before stepping in.

[Anonymous]

As a government contractor I am so relieved this evening. Thank you moderates for getting something done

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a government contractor I am so relieved this evening. Thank you moderates for getting something done

thank you to both moderates AND democrats. It wasn't just the moderate dems that voted for this. remember, the dems are never the ones willing to burn it down. McCarthy had to put his ego aside to work with them. And remember, they already met him halfway with the original debt deal. THE REPUBLICANS didn't hold up their end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don’t understand why we are finding Ukraine. This is akin to China funding Mexico if the US invaded Mexico after China created an entire defense pact in South America and was hinting for years that Mexico would join.

We are in a proxy war with Russia. We don’t want them to re-establish power in the former Soviet territories. So we send money (though much of the funding stays internal to the US in terms of defense supplies), and Ukrainians supply the manpower. Pretty good arrangement, really.

NP. I don’t disagree with you but the Admin and Pentagon and State need to make this case publicly on record and Congress needs to publicly debate the pros and cons of this. If that happens I think most would back it.
Heck, Bush and his henchmen at State and in the military at least did this in justifying a war with Iraq based entirely on lies.

This isn't a state secret but it's not something that you advertise publicly. Our current official support for Ukraine is sufficient. The House already voted for the Ukraine aid. They just needed something to complain about during these past couple days.

Your response is why so many in this country distrust the federal government and just gives populists rhetorical ammo.

Wow- someone who gets it. Many working class Republicans sent their sons to war for Bush and got burned and betrayed with the lies. And in the end, it was all for nothing. Even though the Ukraine war is using Ukrainian men instead of American men this time, there's just no appetite to continue funding more forever wars after funding Iraq/Afghanistan for 20 years.

But there aren't any American soldiers fighting in Ukraine

Ultimately, the question really is do we send some surplus equipment to help a country that's been invaded by our greatest adversary for the past eighty years. The old equipment is going to get destroyed one way or another. Might as well use the old stuff to obtain some important strategic objectives.

It's a tiny percentage of the Defense budget. The gains have been outstanding. Russia is no longer a threat to anyone.

Win-win for the civilized world

[Anonymous]

This makes me realize I need a new job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don’t understand why we are finding Ukraine. This is akin to China funding Mexico if the US invaded Mexico after China created an entire defense pact in South America and was hinting for years that Mexico would join.

We are in a proxy war with Russia. We don’t want them to re-establish power in the former Soviet territories. So we send money (though much of the funding stays internal to the US in terms of defense supplies), and Ukrainians supply the manpower. Pretty good arrangement, really.

Except that we shouldn’t be in a proxy war with a nuclear power. Remember how dangerous the Cold War era was? And second, the Ukrainians will never win this war. Instead the US’s goal is to exhaust the Russians till the last Ukrainian. It is fighting its proxy war till the last Ukrainian. This is what the US did when it funded Afghan fighters (including Osama Bin Laden) against the Russians.

No it's not. It's fundamentally different and the US wasn't funding Bin Laden just because he happened to be there at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So will the poster who kept calling optimists “trolls” please apologize?

Apologize for what? A shutdown looked far more likely than not.

Calling people who saw beyond the drama and knew there wouldn’t be a shutdown “trolls.” The optimists were just smarter, I guess.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Some folks are just better than others at this.

Knock it off. You just made a lucky guess this time. Why are you so needy for applause?

Nope. Not a guess at all—just a reasoned, rational prognostication. Moving forward, please, everyone out there, don’t label those with reasonable contrary views “trolls.”

DP - if you and the other “optimists” hadn’t been so smug and condescending, you wouldn’t have gotten the backlash you did.

There were like, what, two of us here? Nothing smug about getting it right.